I did not have time to read the full piece, but thought it was an interesting topic for a fishing site. This from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Wisconsin will warm 6-7 degrees by Mid-century according to UW Madison researchers.
The habitat for brook trout could be lost altogether, brown trout could lose 88% of their habitat and northern pike could lose 72%, the study showed.
But the habitat for large mouth bass could increase by 34% and for channel catfish by 32%
Eric
That is interesting. Thanks for sharing. However, I wouldn’t advise anyone to take this study to seriously. In fact, this quote
“Wisconsin’s temperatures are expected to increase by an annual average of 6 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by midcentury”,
must be a typo.
I haven’t heard of a climate change model that was able to accurately predict the climate. (Don’t get me started on the flaws involved in this so called science)
Quote:
But the habitat for large mouth bass could increase by 34% and for channel catfish by 32%
That’s almost enough for me to want to believe in global warming.
Call it what you want, believe in it or not. But everyone has to agree that humans are destroying the Earth to the point that it will not function well in the future.
So to see people bicker about global warming, but still continue to use the resources as if the Earth’s population was 1/10th its size is similar to an obese person going to a buffet and complaining that the booths are too small.
If everybody keeps their eyes closed long enough, the problems will go away, right?
Junk science. They have no idea what the temps will be in 50 years. I give the comrades at UW Madison (Berkely East) credit for not giving up! 
dd
Quote:
Junk science. They have no idea what the temps will be in 50 years. I give the comrades at UW Madison (Berkely East) credit for not giving up!
dd
Agree…….Al Gore is in hiding right now 
This is pollution related not global warming related. I seen an article a few months ago about how the strict pollution standards in California that were put in place in the late 70’s early 80’s are working so good that the trout are coming back to the streams. Also the streams that the salmon had left are now coming back, we do have to try to limit pollution. If the fish are coming back and are healthy were going in the right direction.
I know this guy Bob I drink a few beers with once in awhile and hes a millwright and his group just got done retrofitting a coal plant in S.E. Iowa along the Mississippi river to the new pollution standards and its now burning at 90% clean with the way they burn the coal and the way they scrub the smoke. Thats pretty darned clean compared to what it was 40 years ago, straight up the stack, its no wonder all the fish left those streams back then, they were full of acid from the coal smoke.
Quote:
Junk science. They have no idea what the temps will be in 50 years. I give the comrades at UW Madison (Berkely East) credit for not giving up!
dd
Agreed 100% 
Global warming has been taking place for millions and millions of years, take one minute to think……this world we live in was once completely covered in ice. Now here we are millions of years later and they are blaming people and pollution for something that has been naturally taking place for a long, long time. They speculate that pollution is speeding the process but I believe once you lose so much ice the process is going to naturally speed itself as there isn’t enough ice to balance itself (warm beats cold so to speak), so which side of the fence do you sit on ? Is the glass half full or half empty ?
Mossy, I might not believe the world is round or that there is global warming, but I am all for cleaning this place up.
I’ll just say one more thing, if the Climate Changologists were really serious about stopping global warming or climate change, they would be stopping the destruction of the rain forests.
Kinda funny how the whole system works. If UW wants to get more funding for global warming from the goverment who wants to mandate what we can and cannot do to the enviroment they have to come up with “positive reports” from there study to get more money to study more global warming. Its kinda like me paying my kids to do chores. If they don’t do it to my satisfaction they will get no money. In fact if I dont like how they do it I make them do it all over again. Global warming could very well be happening but it would be nice to see a entity studying it that does not have motives tied to the goverment and money.
You hit the nail right on the head bigpike. My daughter has been spending a great deal of time researching climate change “research” for a college term paper. Amazingly, worldwide the vast majority of studies and “scholars” who support the man caused warming theory either directly or indirectly gained financially either personally or through further funding for their cause. The same is not true of those who find the theory questionable, or debunk it.
I’ve always taught my daughter not to accept what she reads, is taught in school, or hears from any source without questioning. It is unbelievable how much negative feedback she has recieved from “teachers” in high school and college when she questions this science. Much the same as she experienced early in school when she refused to believe or subscribe to the “theory” of evolution. It seems that many of our teachers and professors struggle to differentiate theory from law.
I am, however, entirely in support of conservation of resources wherever plausible, and the development of alternative and renewable sources of energy, just not in favor of pied piper politics where we are led to the slaughter of industry by the tree huggers!
Global warming has been taking place for millions and millions of years, take one minute to think……this world we live in was once completely covered in ice. Now here we are millions of years later and they are blaming people and pollution for something that has been naturally taking place for a long, long time. They speculate that pollution is speeding the process but I believe once you lose so much ice the process is going to naturally speed itself as there isn’t enough ice to balance itself (warm beats cold so to speak), so which side of the fence do you sit on ? Is the glass half full or half empty ? If you don’t believe this, just get a glass of ice. The more the ice melts, the faster it melts. 
Quote:
You hit the nail right on the head bigpike. My daughter has been spending a great deal of time researching climate change “research” for a college term paper. Amazingly, worldwide the vast majority of studies and “scholars” who support the man caused warming theory either directly or indirectly gained financially either personally or through further funding for their cause. The same is not true of those who find the theory questionable, or debunk it.
I’ve always taught my daughter not to accept what she reads, is taught in school, or hears from any source without questioning. It is unbelievable how much negative feedback she has recieved from “teachers” in high school and college when she questions this science. Much the same as she experienced early in school when she refused to believe or subscribe to the “theory” of evolution. It seems that many of our teachers and professors struggle to differentiate theory from law.
I am, however, entirely in support of conservation of resources wherever plausible, and the development of alternative and renewable sources of energy, just not in favor of pied piper politics where we are led to the slaughter of industry by the tree huggers!
I hope your daughter does not get docked on her grade for researching a real world view 
While the specifics of climate change really cannot be predicted with much accuracy, I don’t think anyone can honestly argue that we haven’t significantly altered the chemistry of the planet’s atmosphere. We have dumped BILLIONS of tons of CO2 among many other things. Even the newest Coal scrubbers don’t remove the mercury, which is being deposited in ALL of our lakes and rivers. As any farmer knows if you screw up the balance of nutrients in the soil, bad things will happen. The same general principle applies to the atmosphere.
If it wasn’t for global warming it would be -15 here in LaCrosse instead of -3 right now. 
Quote:
While the specifics of climate change really cannot be predicted with much accuracy, I don’t think anyone can honestly argue that we haven’t significantly altered the chemistry of the planet’s atmosphere. We have dumped BILLIONS of tons of CO2 among many other things. Even the newest Coal scrubbers don’t remove the mercury, which is being deposited in ALL of our lakes and rivers. As any farmer knows if you screw up the balance of nutrients in the soil, bad things will happen. The same general principle applies to the atmosphere.
Yea mercury BAD but yet they mandate curly cue light bulbs which contain mercury and don`t last as long as they claim. So we will end up with more mercury in our landfills polluting ground water…..gov`t at work.
Being we are a carbon life form here is an interesting article from the New York Times paper on how fast the rain forest is taking over farm land. CO2 is used by plants to grow and the more available the faster they grow. CO2 is not a pollutant. Rain Forest are growing back faster then it is being cut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html
Quote:
Being we are a carbon life form here is an interesting article from the New York Times paper on how fast the rain forest is taking over farm land. CO2 is used by plants to grow and the more available the faster they grow. CO2 is not a pollutant. Rain Forest are growing back faster then it is being cut.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html
Pretty interesting story that kind of counters what I said. Here’s a quote from the article.
Quote:
The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play
I don’t think they should “contaminate” the pollution problem with Climate change. I think here in the US we’ve done a pretty good job of combating it.
Quote:
While the specifics of climate change really cannot be predicted with much accuracy, I don’t think anyone can honestly argue that we haven’t significantly altered the chemistry of the planet’s atmosphere. We have dumped BILLIONS of tons of CO2 among many other things. Even the newest Coal scrubbers don’t remove the mercury, which is being deposited in ALL of our lakes and rivers. As any farmer knows if you screw up the balance of nutrients in the soil, bad things will happen. The same general principle applies to the atmosphere.
There is no doubt that people have altered the atmosphere, but what would the solution be? We are less than 1/17 th of the world population, and as the rest of the world furthers industrialization efforts, we become less and less a contributor to atmospheric pollution. We have an overload of ever expanding and revolving regulations to adhere to, while China and India, among many others, have very little regulation. The only solution I can see that would realistically have an impact would be cutting the earths population in half. Any other regulatory solution only harms those be regulated….
If we call CO2 pollution, we might as well add O2.
All that said, this report is being used by the WI DNR to set a road map for department policy for the next 5 decades.
So, what would a DNR department do, in regards to fishing policy? With expected ( 
??) loss of trout and northern pike habitat, does the DNR slowly begin to shift focus of resources away from trout, especially in the southern part of WI, and toward bass and channel cats?
Are they referring to stream trout or lake trout? Also, is muskie habitat that much different than northern pike? Ouch, that will be a blow to WI tourism.
Eric
At least they wont have to plan for deer management in the distant future having eradicated them decades earlier.
I am confused, when I was in high school, It was rammed into my brain we were entering the next ice age. Did I miss the ice age ? I thought they lasted up to 1000 years… 
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
